200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000

Key:

Mid Mersey study area N UU Integrated WRZ

Eden and Esk 550000 550000 CAMS Lower Mersey and Alt

Derwent Croal and Irwell

Crossens

Water available / Dee no water available Derwent Water available / overabstracted Douglas (Derwent, , W.Cumbria) Leven &

500000 500000 Duddon Crake Duddon Eden and Esk Kent Lune Kent

Leven and Crake Water available / no water available One WRMU is over licensed Lune (Lune) Mersey and Bollin

Ribble Mostly over licensed. Two WRMUs are over abstracted due to PWS Roch, Irk and Medlock 450000 (Wyre) 450000 Wyre Ribble Shropshire Middle Severn Water available to over licensed (Northern Manchester) Tame, Goyt and Etherow Range between water available to no water available / over abstracted Weaver and Dane (Ribble, Douglas, Crossens) Water available / Wyre no water available Crossens (Northern Manchester) Douglas Croal and UU = United Utilities Irwell Roch, Irk and PWS = Public Water Supply Medlock Majority no water available / overabstracted 400000 Water available 400000 (Lower Mersey & Alt) Tame, Goyt Lower Mersey and Alt and Etherow 04.5 9 18 27 36

Mersey and Bollin Kilometers Scale: 1:1,100,000 Dee water available / H:\Projects\28467 Mid Mersey WCS\Drawings\GIS\mxd Majority no water available over licensed / over licensed (Mersey Bollin)

Mid Mersey Outline Water Cycle Study

Weaver and Dane Water available Figure 4.4 Dee 350000 350000 CAMS in the water resource zone

November 2010 28467-W09 RYANS 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 Based upon the Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright. AL100001776

Page 36 Doc Reg No. 28467 rr064i4 April 2011

4.2.4 Water Supply Infrastructure

The extensive links between sources of supply and the centres of demand in the Integrated Zone means that developments in , Halton and St. Helens are more likely to be constrained by water supply infrastructure than by water resource availability. To support this Outline WCS United Utilities has examined the total number of expected development sites as set out in the SHLAA for all three Councils. United Utilities has assessed the impact on water supply of the existing distribution network and has categorised and defined sites as follows:

• High resource availability.

Infrastructure connectivity in the area is robust. There is no evidence of pressure problems within the existing customer base. Connection requests are likely to progress with minimal disruption and lead time.

• Medium resource availability.

The existing infrastructure may be inadequate for planned development. Modelling may be required to process requests for new connections. This would increase the lead time before the infrastructure is in place. It would also potentially incur costs to potential developers.

• Low resource availability.

There are known concerns with further developments in this geographical area. Modelling is definitely required to process new connection requests. It is highly likely that developers will be required to invest capital. Lead time before the infrastructure is in place may be significant. This should be factored into any planned developments in such areas.

Table 4.4 summarises the locations where the infrastructure is constraining water supply. It is important to consider the following caveats when interpreting this assessment:

• This evaluation is based upon a case-by-case basis for a single development. Multiple developments over time in a concentrated area will impact on the resource availability rating;

• In any significant connection request, there is a need to evaluate via modelling the impact on the surrounding network to ensure that customer serviceability in regards to pressure and availability of water is not negatively impacted.

The assessment focussed on housing development sites. For employment sites, water supply is normally planned based on volumes identified as being required by the developers. It is more difficult to proactively manage and plan for because industrial sites may use water for a wide range of uses for example, for domestic (kitchen, toilets) purposes, or for process use in manufacturing. Consequently, the relationship between employment land use and water demand is difficult to define and plan for.

Page 37 Doc Reg No. 28467 rr064i4 April 2011

Table 4.4 Water Supply Constraints

Council Constraint Comments Level

Warrington The majority of sites are not constrained by supply infrastructure.

There are minor supply network issues constraining development in Warrington town centre. These will be addressed through the Warrington Supply Improvements scheme. No action for Councils.

High Warren service reservoir network periphery: developers would need to fund network enhancements (such as mains reinforcement) to ensure that development here would not result in low pressure for existing customers. New sites in North Warrington would be fed from a strategic main that has a history of bursts. Sections of this main may require duplication and no scheme is currently in place to address this. Omega and Chapelford sites would place significant additional demand on existing network. United Utilities has identified two potential solutions: 1) Construct two link mains to Winwick and Brown Edge service reservoirs, costing approximately £25m; 2) Reinforce the south side of Omega through network enhancements delivered as part of the Waterfront development, costing around £5m and requiring 12-18 months to complete. United Utilities will not progress either solution until a requisition is received. Site 1506 Peel Hall is located in an area where existing customers might experience low pressure if development were to proceed within network enhancements. Modelling is required to determine requirements. Arpley Meadows site is difficult to access in terms of water supply network due to the Manchester Ship Canal, the and railways bordering the site. A dedicated main, funded by developers, is likely to be required, with a 3-4 year lead time and estimated cost >£5m.

No sites are subject to prohibitive constraints

Halton Development within the North Widnes area is not constrained by supply infrastructure.

Sites located within town centre are subject to minor constraints. Due to the number of sites (around 13 identified in SHLAA) and the presence a larger site (Runcorn Docks) in the area, United Utilities consider that further investigation would be required through network modelling to confirm whether network enhancements would be required. Development in the Widnes Waterfront could not be supported by the local network. A new main will be taken from an aqueduct at Dan’s Road. As development is progressed, connections to the local network will be shut off so that the development is fed directly off the Dan’s Road main. This project is underway currently.

Runcorn Docks (site 288) The developer has identified the potential of up to 4000 properties on this site. The Halton Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2010 identifies a yield of 1,400 units in the period to 2026. United Utilities state that demand from development in the first 5 years could be met. However, subsequently network enhancements would be required. These could include a dedicated main to Runcorn service reservoir (2-3 years lead time) or a by-pass main (6 months lead time). Sites 266 Keckwick Lane, 853 Land Adjacent to Marina, 801 Delph Lane and 138 Castlefields are all identified as sites with potential connectivity issues due to the presence of transport infrastructure (sites bounded by motorways, canals and railways). This makes accessing the sites and connecting to the existing network difficult. Potential solutions exist for all sites, but would require further investigation.

No sites are subject to prohibitive constraints

Page 38 Doc Reg No. 28467 rr064i4 April 2011

Council Constraint Comments Level

St. Helens Sites in the northern and north western areas of St. Helens are not constrained by supply infrastructure (i.e. in wards of Moss Bank, Windle, West Park, and Eccleston)

The vast majority of sites in St. Helens have medium resource availability. Depending on the actual number of developments in a given area there may be some pressure issues that would require mains reinforcement (i.e. sites 56, 132, 135, 168, 310, 404, 411, 414, 495, 506, 507, 532, 595, 604).

Moss Bank is generally unconstrained but there are localised areas where new development may require mains reinforcement to improve supply availability (low resource availability). Site 412 in Moss Bank is identified as not being close to the supply network. Similarly, parts of Rainford, and out towards Billinge are in the same situation. Elsewhere in parts of West Park (168, 285, 333) and (41, 173, 269, 317, 501, 600) the pumped supply has already been upgraded but additional reinforcements could be needed to improve the situation.

No sites are subject to prohibitive constraints

Within the Mid Mersey area, no potential development sites have been identified as being unable to proceed due to major water supply constraints.

Warrington is served by three service reservoirs:

• Hillcliffe is located to the south of the town centre and serves south Warrington and the town centre;

• High Warren is located to the South East of Warrington and serves the area; and

• A reservoir at Winwick serves Warrington north of the town centre.

The Warrington Supply Improvement scheme is currently being implemented by United Utilities. This will allow more water to be taken from Hillcliffe service reservoir to meet demand in the town centre, reducing demand on Winwick reservoir.

Within Halton, development along the Runcorn docks may require a dedicated main or other network enhancements to service development beyond the first five-year period. The main issue is the potential cumulative impact if all the proposed sites along the Runcorn Docks are developed. If this takes place then there could be a need to increase the capacity of the network supplying this area. Elsewhere, development sites located to the east of Runcorn are constrained by existing transport infrastructure that may make it difficult and expensive to connect these sites to the water supply network. Further network modelling and investigation is required to identify potential solutions.

Across St. Helens the water supply network presents few areas of concern. The main issues to watch out for are the few sites which are not close to the network and the areas where additional reinforcements could be needed to improve pumped supplies.

Page 39 Doc Reg No. 28467 rr064i4 April 2011

Consideration of Growth in Neighbouring Authority Areas

The Councils in the Mid Mersey area are three of many local authorities in the North West (within the Integrated WRZ) projecting significant growth. United Utilities has developed a strategy to secure public water supplies on the assumption that there will be a total of 609,000 new dwellings and 835,000 additional people in the Integrated WRZ by 2034/35. The company has confirmed that this assumption is based on the figures in the RSS. Figure 4.5 shows that whilst growth is expected in all areas, the majority of it will be concentrated in the southern part of the Integrated WRZ between and Manchester. From a strategic water resource point of view water resources are not expected to be a constraint to growth.

There is insufficient detail on the location of proposed development in the neighbouring local authority areas on which to determine the potential competing pressures on the water supply network. According to the distribution pattern set out in the approved RSS, growth will be greatest in the Manchester and Salford area. However, it is reasonable to assume that this is unlikely to be adjacent to the Mid Mersey area (alongside the M62 at Chat Moss, currently undeveloped). There may be more of a risk of competing growth from Ashton-in-Makerfield/Golborne (North Manchester) adding to pressure on systems supplying Haydock. Similarly, in the west of the study area if Liverpool/Knowlsey growth is proposed for -with-Roby and Whiston this could add pressure on the system supplying the south western areas of St. Helens, e.g. and . It is recommended that the local authorities and United Utilities liaise closely to identify early on if these risks are likely to materialise.

4.2.5 Potential Solutions

The conclusion is that growth in Mid Mersey would not be constrained by water resources on the condition that United Utilities is able to implement its WRMP, the solution of which is primarily to develop its groundwater resources at Southport and Oldham. The Local Authorities should work with the water company to identify opportunities to promote water efficiency, to reduce average per capita consumption below 144 l/p/day.

Water supply infrastructure improvements are likely to be required across the study area although the level of works will depend on the extent of development. The required upgrades do not represent significant constraints but it is clearly essential for United Utilities to be made aware of development plans at the earliest stage in order to prevent various lead times from delaying development.

Page 40 Doc Reg No. 28467 rr064i4 April 2011

320000 330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 Key

420000 Greater 420000 Preston Mid Mersey study area

N Local authority/sub-regional districts United Utilities Integrated WRZ

Scale of proposed housing growth (RSS) < 1100 p.a

1100 - 2000 p.a 410000 410000 Pennine 2000 - 2500 p.a Manchester South West > 5000 p.a North Manchester

400000 Manchester and Salford 400000

Liverpool Mid & Knowlsey Mersey 390000 390000

Wirral 380000 380000

WRZ = Water Resource Zone South Manchester/ RSS = Regional Spatial Strategy NE p.a = Per Annum

Inset: growth projections across the North West and North regions

01.5 3 6 9 12 370000 370000 Kilometers Flintshire W. Cheshire Scale: 1:300,000 @ A3 H:\Projects\28467 Mid Mersey WCS\Drawings\GIS\mxd

Mid Mersey Outline Water Cycle Study

Figure 4.5

360000 360000 Growth in neighbouring areas

Data source: Table 7.1 of the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (2008)

November 2010 28467-W10 RYANS 320000 330000 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 Denbigshire Based upon the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright. AL100001776 South Cheshire

Page 42 Doc Reg No. 28467 rr064i4 April 2011

4.3 Waste Water Treatment and Water Quality

4.3.1 Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Constraints

Wastewater services in the Mid Mersey area are provided by United Utilities. These are listed in Table 4.5 below and illustrated in Figure 4.7. The level of constraint currently imposed by each treatment works is summarised in Table 4.6. There are eight wastewater treatment works identified in Table 4.5. These vary in size and thus the volume of effluent that they discharge. Billinge South is a small wastewater treatment works, serving the loc